Galatians 3 vs 1689

[faithandfreedom]

It is through use of the text itself, just as if I say my interpretation of your post is that everything I say is true this is refuted not by an appeal to authority but by reference to the text itself with which it is inconsistent. The holy scriptures are both text and gloss, and contain in themselves everything necessary for true religion, with the less clear passages being interpreted through the more clear ones and not through the traditions of men (which serve to nullify rather than exposit the scriptures).

Yes, but in practice, who has the final say as to what conclusions are or are not consistent with the text?

 

[JH]

Yes, but in practice, who has the final say as to what conclusions are or are not consistent with the text?

Scripture always has the final say, it is the final judge, the infallible rule, the bedrock of our faith and practice. What disagreement looks like practically between two or more folk is a different matter.

 

[faithandfreedom]

Scripture always has the final say, it is the final judge, the infallible rule, the bedrock of our faith and practice.

Agreed.

What disagreement looks like practically between two or more folk is a different matter.

That’s what my question is addressing.

 

[JH]

That’s what my question is addressing.

Could you rephrase the question or elaborate further? Originally it sounded like a question of authority, like 'who's to say who's wrong' &c.

 

[brandonadams]

I appreciate it and I may read it if I find the time, but I didn’t really post this thread either to invite or respond to a 49 page essay.

Then feel free to refrain from passing any judgment on my interpretation of the text. You can find answers to the objections you raise here https://contrast2.wordpress.com/

 

[Christodulus]

Then feel free to refrain from passing any judgment on my interpretation of the text.

I will refrain from passing any judgment in this thread on anything you have said outside of this thread.

 

[MW]

Brother, I believe you have mis-read Romans 9:8. Paul does not in any way deny that Abraham's children according to the flesh (narrowed to the line of Ishmael, then Isaac) were the ones with whom the Covenant of Circumcision was made. As Paul just said in v5, to them belong the covenants and promises. Paul's concern is to answer the question of the fulfillment of the prophecies concerning Israel's greater exodus at the coming of the Messiah. His kinsmen according to the flesh have rejected the Messiah and do thus God's Word seems to have failed.

His answer is that the restoration prophesied at the coming of the Messiah refers to spiritual Israel, not Israel according to the flesh ("But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel"). In this, he is simply following Jesus' instruction for interpreting those prophesies taught in John 6:45. Paul's appeal to the Covenant of Circumcision is not to argue for a two-fold membership in that covenant or to deny that it was made with Abraham's offspring according to the flesh. Rather, he is setting the precedent that it has always been a matter of God's sovereign choice.

Paul is answering the charge that the word of God has failed. Why would anyone think it failed? Because they think the covenant promises were made to Abraham’s physical descendants, and yet many of them are unbelieving. Paul's answer is not that those promises were never about Abraham’s physical descendants, as if they were typological. His answer is, Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel. In other words, There has always been an Israel within Israel. Paul proves this by appealing to the Abrahamic covenant itself: Esau was circumcised and a physical son of Isaac, yet he was not counted as Israel. This is not typology. It is covenantal differentiation inside the Abrahamic covenant.

Which of Abraham's offspring did God promise to give the land to? Paul says it was those descended through Isaac, not Ishmael. Simple descent from Abraham alone was never sufficient. It was always dependent upon God's choice, His promise. God promised that Abraham would miraculously be given an heir through Sarah. Ishmael was not that promised offspring. Isaac was. "The children of promise will be counted as offspring" in this context refers to God promising Isaac's miraculous physical birth, not being born again spiritually: "For this is what the promise said: “About this time next year I will return, and Sarah shall have a son.”"

You are treating the land promise as if its meaning were exhausted by the physical soil of Canaan. But the patriarchs themselves did not interpret it that way. Hebrews says explicitly that while they sojourned in the land, they looked beyond it to a better country, that is, a heavenly one. They lived in tents in Canaan because they understood the land typologically. Its true substance was the inheritance God gives to His elect. If you insist that Isaac's physical birth is the controlling meaning of "promise," then you must also insist that the land itself was their final inheritance. But Scripture says the opposite. The patriarchs received the land by promise, yet they confessed they were strangers and pilgrims in it. They saw the land with the eyes of faith, not with carnal eyes. Your reading forces them to see the land carnally, as if the dirt of Canaan were the ultimate fulfilment. But the patriarchs themselves refuse that interpretation. They understood the promise the way Paul does in Romans 9 -- not as a merely physical inheritance tied to miraculous birth, but as a spiritual inheritance tied to God's electing grace.

Paul establishes the same point using the next generation as an example. The line through Jacob, not Esau, would receive the promised land of Canaan. “The older will serve the younger” is not a statement about salvation.

So say the Arminians in an attempt to establish their doctrine of conditional election, as if Paul were speaking of temporal conditions rather than eternal destinies. Every Calvinist acknowledges Romans 9 is about unconditional election. The word "belong" is present tense; it is not typological. Paul is not saying that the Abrahamic promises were typological shadows fulfilled in the church. He is saying the Abrahamic promises still belong to ethnic Israel, but only the elect within Israel inherit them. But you would turn it on its head by trying to mix Anabaptist exegetical categories in there, which effectively makes election "conditional."

Eph 2, right, again, typology. We are Israel according to the Spirit, so yes, we are "the circumcision" - but not in the sense that Israel according to the flesh was. Note carefully that Israel according to the Spirit is "one new man, in place of the two [Israel according to the flesh and Gentiles]."

Your reading of Eph. 2 contradicts Paul's argument. He says Gentiles were strangers to the covenants of promise, but now they are fellow citizens and members of the same household. He does not say that Gentiles are a new kind of Israel unrelated to the old. Your reading requires Paul to say the opposite of what he actually says.

We distinguish, biblically.

It is not in the Bible I am reading. You have introduced false dichotomies to alleviate Calvinist tensions with your Anabaptist exegesis.

 

[No Other Name]

This is a common opinion, but I do not believe it can stand the scriptural test for several reasons.

Interesting. But your answers seem to be missing something.

1. If the covenant were formed with Abraham’s natural seed, then all of Abraham’s natural seed would be party to it. The covenant was made not with Israel, but with Abraham, and yet there were many natural sons of Abraham which were strangers from the covenant of promise

Yes, all of Abraham's natural seed in obedience to the Abrahamic Covenant as they obey YHWH - the covenant LORD God of Israel. This would preclude the seeds of Ishmael and later Esau by their own actions. And these natural sons of Abraham are strangers from the covenant of promise for either the land of Canaan or the promised Blessing on all nations from the Offspring because they are not partakers in the obligations of the Abrahamic covenant proper.

To any and all Muslims we would preach that it is not enough to circumcise male infants, one needs to also follow after the true YHWH - covenant LORD God of Israel throughout all of redemptive-history. Repent and believe in Christ.

2. Likewise it would imply none could be members of the covenant besides the natural seed of Abraham, which again is disproven by many counter-examples e.g. Uriah the Hittite.

Well, that was true enough until the Sinaitic covenant which then permitted Hittites, and any other "-ites" to become members of the covenant community.

NOTE: Before Sinai, all other non-Abrahamic individuals God can in His good pleasure may save or not save in a way that is not normative to the covenant (possibly Abimelech etc)

. We read nothing in scripture about this third covenant which is neither the covenant of works nor the covenant of grace, whenever it is addressed we see two seeds (Gen. 3), two humanities (Rom. 5) or two covenants (Gal. 4) but not three;

What third covenant? There is the Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace. (But here I may be different than Adams? I honestly don't know)

The implication is not that obedience was the basis of their covenant but that they possessed the law, the purpose of which is to be a tutor unto Christ and to bring the knowledge of sin, but not to make men righteous.

Now in dealing with this, we need to differentiate between the Covenant as being obeyed in flesh or spirit. In flesh as to a Covenant of Works, it will be to nothing. Circumcise every male infant you have, it is to nothing unto salvation. Only in obedience of faith in God that gives new life to the worshipper does the act give sanctifying grace by the only Mediator from eternity - Christ Jesus.

In the days of Sinai, make sacrifice as to a work that saves you, it is as to nothing. Moses says directly it is a matter of the heart (Deut. 30:16-17) and the writer of Hebrews affirms that the blood of bulls and goats could only purify the flesh ceremonially but could not save.

5. The earthly promises and blessings of the old covenant were only intended to lead the Israelites toward Christ and the greater fulfillment to come, having no end in themselves (Heb. 11:10)

Only? Is that what Hebrews says there? As in a precluding of the parallel promises of land and victory over other nations (Ex. 23:22; 27-31; Deut. 28:9; Lev. 26:3-8; et al)? Genuinely asking. I am not presuming anything of you or your position.

6. God will not suffer any unclean thing to enter His presence, and those who are under the law are bound to keep every part of it. It does not accord with His holiness to only judge sinners temporally and not eternally. If they are judged for their own merits, they must perish eternally, if they are judged on Christ’s merits, they will suffer no punishment at all. Likewise, if one keeps the whole law he merits not land but eternal life.

I am unsure how you suppose it logically follows from our position that we believe this?

 

[YeshuaFan]

But again. Saying "the Bible alone" means what? To paraphrase Keith Mathison we can't just set the scriptures on the table and ask it to arbitrate between two positions. Any appeal to scripture is an appeal to an interpretation of scripture.

pardon me if I am understanding this incorrectly, but it seems to me that some time the reference and authority point for dividing scriptures to some are the Confessions of Faith and not the bible itself only?

 

[Northern Crofter]

The Covenant of Circumcision...

So in your view circumcision is in itself a covenant and not the sign and seal of a covenant?
[automerge]1776101344[/automerge]

NOTE: Before Sinai, all other non-Abrahamic individuals God can in His good pleasure may save or not save in a way that is not normative to the covenant (possibly Abimelech etc)

Do you put Melchizedek in this (not normative) group? Or does such a figure suggest that the covenant made with Abraham is actually part of a greater covenant.

What third covenant? There is the Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace. (But here I may be different than Adams? I honestly don't know)

I come away with this same conclusion and would be interested to know if this is in fact what Adams is proposing. I don't agree there are 3, but it would seem to make his system "work."

 

[No Other Name]

Do you put Melchizedek in this (not normative) group? Or does such a figure suggest that the covenant made with Abraham is actually part of a greater covenant.

Either a human in this not-normative group or he is not human but a Christophany.

But then, all OT saints before Abraham or contemporary to Abraham in another land are not normative relative to the Abrahamic covenant. All OT saints before then are saved-while-not-circumcised and not promised the physical land of Canaan, while they are still under worshipful obligation of altar sacrifices and still promised there will come a Serpent-crusher.

 

[Christodulus]

Yes, all of Abraham's natural seed in obedience to the Abrahamic Covenant as they obey YHWH - the covenant LORD God of Israel. This would preclude the seeds of Ishmael and later Esau by their own actions. And these natural sons of Abraham are strangers from the covenant of promise for either the land of Canaan or the promised Blessing on all nations from the Offspring because they are not partakers in the obligations of the Abrahamic covenant proper.

Galatians 4:21-31 and Romans 9:6-13 teach that they were excluded because of the sovereign purposes of God rather than their own works. Whatever could be construed as disobedience to the Abrahamic covenant, it appears Ishmael was not excluded on account of it, who was excluded before he become the father of a nation, and not on account of rejecting circumcision or anything else of that nature.

Well, that was true enough until the Sinaitic covenant which then permitted Hittites, and any other "-ites" to become members of the covenant community.

NOTE: Before Sinai, all other non-Abrahamic individuals God can in His good pleasure may save or not save in a way that is not normative to the covenant (possibly Abimelech etc)

1. Was Eliezer of Damascus normative or not normative? 2. What particularly at Sinai do you see as opening the door to foreigners, which previously was not open to them?

What third covenant? There is the Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace. (But here I may be different than Adams? I honestly don't know)

I have been working through his essay, and I believe our brother holds a view similar to subservient covenantalists, such as John Owen or in our modern day R. Scott Clark (except that he differs from them in identifying the inauguration in the Abrahamic covenant rather than at Sinai). This is a perspective I have heard from 1689 federalists before, so I thought I recognized it in what he is saying. Under this view, the old covenant is neither a covenant of works nor a covenant of grace but a unique third thing distinct from both since it promises not eternal life but land in Israel. Hence, the condition of the covenant is to observe the laws of God and the promise is to inherit the promised land. This is also why I made reference to temporal punishments, this view carries with it the really unacceptable soteriological implication that justified believers are still subject to temporal punishments (namely, the temporal curses of the “covenant of circumcision”), and at that point we may as well start talking about purgatory.

Only? Is that what Hebrews says there? As in a precluding of the parallel promises of land and victory over other nations (Ex. 23:22; 27-31; Deut. 28:9; Lev. 26:3-8; et al)? Genuinely asking. I am not presuming anything of you or your position.

I would say the promise of victory over enemies is not distinct from the promise to be a God to them, and as well as the promise to bless those who bless them and curse those who curse them is inherited by the Church today. But the promise of the land I would not see as a promise properly in itself but as a sacrament directing them beyond itself to the heavenly country, and considered as a bare sign the land would not be worth much. (This I would say is a reason crusader theology was in error, as the promised land was a sacrament of the old law and a type and shadow the greater fulfillment in Christ which was therefore abolished in Him. I see the crusades as one of many judaizing trends of the middle ages. But I digress)

 

[No Other Name]

But the promise of the land I would not see as a promise properly in itself but as a sacrament directing them beyond itself to the heavenly country, and considered as a bare sign the land would not be worth much.

I am utterly confused here.

As you clarify that, can you answer if you equate the Covenant of Redemption with the Covenant of Grace like Gill and Keach did? That is one of (if not the primary) reasons 1689 federalists splintered from them and as Coxe was explaining it gladly affirmed that he did not have to do too much heavy lifting but encouraged everyone to read Owen on Hebrews.

 

[DNM300]

But the promise of the land I would not see as a promise properly in itself but as a sacrament directing them beyond itself to the heavenly country, and considered as a bare sign the land would not be worth much.

I like Cuthbert Sidenham on this point:

“2. The promise of Canaan was typical of heaven, and opened up all the more the first promise, to be their God, showing them that God would bring him and his family to heaven, and the fullness of his glory, as he would bring them to an outward Canaan. And this was suited to God’s design in administering that vast promise by types and outward figures. So Abraham closed in with it by faith, as a promise, expounding figuratively the substance of the Covenant, (Heb.11:8-10, 13-16). So that the first promise was positive and showed the nature of the covenant, the other was typically expository, Canaan setting out Heaven, and the eternity of their rest with this God in Covenant. And this will no more make a mixed Covenant than the type and the substance when they meet together will differ in significance.”

Covenant Theology & Infant Baptism. Puritan Publications, pg. 25

 

[No Other Name]

I would say the promise of Canaan was not merely typical of Heaven but also - by extension of the fact that the Tabernacle and later the Temple was necessarily included - then this promise of land has attending it the promise of the Presence of God in the mercy seat between the cherubims. This seems to be a bit more significant than just a type added on so that one could call it "a bare sign the land would not be worth much".

In retrospect, sure. A great point to bring out to dispensationalists and any other modern day crusader theories, I will agree to that but not in the days of the Old Testament.

 

[MarrowMan]

I would say the promise of Canaan was not merely typical of Heaven but also - by extension of the fact that the Tabernacle and later the Temple was necessarily included - then this promise of land has attending it the promise of the Presence of God in the mercy seat between the cherubims. This seems to be a bit more significant than just a type added on so that one could call it "a bare sign the land would not be worth much".

In retrospect, sure. A great point to bring out to dispensationalists and any other modern day crusader theories, I will agree to that but not in the days of the Old Testament.

Yes, it was typological in the days of the OT. The land pointed towards the earth. The meek shall inherit the earth.

Additionally, it is a recapitulation of Eden. Just as Adam was from Eden to take dominion over all the earth, so Israel from the Promised Land was to take dominion over all the earth. The expectation was that, through them, the true religion would spread worldwide. The Psalms make that abundantly clear.

 

[Christodulus]

As you clarify that, can you answer if you equate the Covenant of Redemption with the Covenant of Grace like Gill and Keach did? That is one of (if not the primary) reasons 1689 federalists splintered from them and as Coxe was explaining it gladly affirmed that he did not have to do too much heavy lifting but encouraged everyone to read Owen on Hebrews.

I do not. The covenant of redemption is eternal, and is the agreement of the Triune God to glorify Himself through the salvation of a particular people. The covenant of grace is only the execution of that decree of election, and is the covenant formed between God and man through the blood shed in time by the Lord Jesus.

I would say the promise of Canaan was not merely typical of Heaven but also - by extension of the fact that the Tabernacle and later the Temple was necessarily included - then this promise of land has attending it the promise of the Presence of God in the mercy seat between the cherubims.

The tabernacle and the temple were typological too, though, Hebrews 9. Also consider Hebrews 10:4 (the ministry of the temple, apart from Christ, truly had no value).

 

[No Other Name]

Yes, it was typological in the days of the OT. The land pointed towards the earth. The meek shall inherit the earth.

Additionally, it is a recapitulation of Eden. Just as Adam was from Eden to take dominion over all the earth, so Israel from the Promised Land was to take dominion over all the earth. The expectation was that, through them, the true religion would spread worldwide. The Psalms make that abundantly clear.

Amen

The tabernacle and the temple were typological too, though, Hebrews 9. Also consider Hebrews 10:4 (the ministry of the temple, apart from Christ, truly had no value).

Yes and amen

 

[faithandfreedom]

Could you rephrase the question or elaborate further? Originally it sounded like a question of authority, like 'who's to say who's wrong' &c.

Based on biblical exegesis, one theologian states that from Rom 1:4 we can conclude that Christ himself was adopted. Christ’s own resurrection marks the moment of his adoption—when he was vindicated by the Spirit (1 Tim. 3:16) for our justification; became life-giving Spirit for our holiness (Rom. 8:9–11; 1 Cor. 15:45); and received approval, confirmation, and appointment by the Father (Rom. 1:3–4; Heb. 5:5–10; cf. Heb. 1:5–14; 2:5–18).

Another theologian says this is incorrect.

How do we adjudicate between these opposing exegetical conclusions?

 

[JH]

How do we adjudicate between these opposing exegetical conclusions?

adjudicate - "to make an official, formal judgment or decision to settle a dispute, conflict, or claim."

That begs the question, what is the judge of such opposing conclusions? What rule or measure are we using to settle the dispute?

 

[faithandfreedom]

adjudicate - "to make an official, formal judgment or decision to settle a dispute, conflict, or claim."

That begs the question, what is the judge of such opposing conclusions? What rule or measure are we using to settle the dispute?

The measure is obviously scripture but that is not answering my question. My question is who, or what body, makes the decision as to what is an orthodox interpretation of scripture?

A person/persons must make a decision otherwise anyone can just say “scripture stares this”. For example, various heretics said that John 1:4 means that Christ took on flesh but did not have a human soul or mind. Who decided they were heretics?

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

The measure is obviously scripture but that is not answering my question. My question is who, or what body, makes the decision as to what is an orthodox interpretation of scripture?

A person/persons must make a decision otherwise anyone can just say “scripture stares this”. For example, various heretics said that John 1:4 means that Christ took on flesh but did not have a human soul or mind. Who decided they were heretics?

"X. The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture."
Westminster Confession of Faith §1.10


"III. It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience;"

Westminster Confession of Faith §31.3

 

[faithandfreedom]

"III. It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience;"

Westminster Confession of Faith §31.3

Exactly, the Church must determine the correct interpretation of scripture. This is how we formulate dogma and why scripture can’t function in the church if it is cut off from the history of interpretation.

 

[JH]

Exactly

Was your question originally rhetorical?

 

[faithandfreedom]

Was your question originally rhetorical?

No, it was a leading question.

 

[JH]

No, it was a leading question.

Rhetorical, in the sense that one is fishing for an answer they already know, that is the same as a leading question. Now that you have your answer, what were you leading to?

 

[faithandfreedom]

Was your question originally rhetorical?

If you are referring to the question about adoption, that is a real example of a modern day of a contemporary difference of interpretation.
[automerge]1776266200[/automerge]

Rhetorical, in the sense that one is fishing for an answer they already know, that is the same as a leading question. Now that you have your answer, what were you leading to?

See post #16 and #22

 

[JH]

If you are referring to the question about adoption, that is a real example of a modern day of a contemporary difference of interpretation.
[automerge]1776266200[/automerge]

See post #16 and #22

Post 23 and following.

 

[faithandfreedom]

Post 23 and following.

Sorry I think our posts overlapped. My point is that people misrepresent what scripture alone means. The combined exegesis of the church interprets scripture and makes decisions about what is orthodox or not.

 

[JH]

Sorry I think our posts overlapped. My point is that people misrepresent what scripture alone means. The combined exegesis of the church interprets scripture and makes decisions about what is orthodox or not.

No worries, I have no disagreements. It is pivotal for us to keep in mind the church's authority is derivative, and would have no authority were it not for the Scriptures themselves; I only desire that we not put the cart before the horse.